Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax: From Afrikaans to Zurich German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

342 Pages·2006·1.8 MB·English

by  Jutta M. Hartmann

<DOCINFOAUTHOR""TITLE"ComparativeStudiesinGermanicSyntax:FromA(frikaans)toZ(urichGerman)"SUBJECT"LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday,Volume97"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"240"WIDTH"160"VOFFSET"4">
ComparativeStudiesinGermanicSyntax
LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday
LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday(LA)providesaplatformfororiginalmonographstudies
intosynchronicanddiachroniclinguistics.StudiesinLAconfrontempiricalandtheoretical
problemsasthesearecurrentlydiscussedinsyntax,semantics,morphology,phonology,and
systematicpragmaticswiththeaimtoestablishrobustempiricalgeneralizationswithina
universalisticperspective.
SeriesEditors
WernerAbraham EllyvanGelderen
UniversityofVienna ArizonaStateUniversity
AdvisoryEditorialBoard
CedricBoeckx IanRoberts
HarvardUniversity CambridgeUniversity
GuglielmoCinque KenSafir
UniversityofVenice RutgersUniversity,NewBrunswickNJ
GüntherGrewendorf LisadeMenaTravis
J.W.Goethe-University,Frankfurt McGillUniversity
LilianeHaegeman StenVikner
UniversityofLille,France UniversityofAarhus
HubertHaider C.Jan-WouterZwart
UniversityofSalzburg UniversityofGroningen
ChristerPlatzack
UniversityofLund
Volume97
ComparativeStudiesinGermanicSyntax:FromAfrikaans
toZurichGerman
EditedbyJuttaM.HartmannandLászlóMolnárfi
Comparative Studies
in Germanic Syntax
From Afrikaans to Zurich German
Editedby
Jutta M. Hartmann
László Molnárfi
TilburgUniversity
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany
Amsterdam(cid:2)/(cid:2)Philadelphia
TM Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirements
8
ofAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences–Permanence
ofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansiz39.48-1984.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
WorkshoponComparativeGermanicSyntax(20th;Tilburg,Netherlands)
ComparativestudiesinGermanicsyntax:fromAfrikaanstoZurichGerman/
editedbyJuttaM.Hartmann,LászlóMolnárfi.
p. cm.(LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday,issn0166–0829;v.97)
Selectedpaperspresentedatthe20thComparativeGermanicSyntax
WorkshopheldinJune,2005,inTilburg.
1.Germaniclanguages--Syntax--Congresses.I.Hartmann,Jutta.II.
Molnárfi,László,1971-
PD361.W67 2005
435--dc22 2006050841
isbn9027233616(Hb;alk.paper)
©2006–JohnBenjaminsB.V.
Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,or
anyothermeans,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCo.·P.O.Box36224·1020meAmsterdam·TheNetherlands
JohnBenjaminsNorthAmerica·P.O.Box27519·Philadelphiapa19118-0519·usa
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006;10:39 F:LA97CO.tex / p.1(47-96)
Table of contents
FromAfrikaanstoZurichGerman:Comparativestudies
inGermanicsyntax 1
JuttaM.Hartmann&LászlóMolnárfi
I. Studiesonpredication
TheNom/AccalternationinGermanic 13
HalldórÁrmannSigurðsson
Shapeconservation,Holmberg’sgeneralizationandpredication 51
OlafKoeneman
Quirkyverb-secondinAfrikaans:Complexpredicatesandheadmovement 89
MarkdeVos
Nominalargumentsandnominalpredicates 115
MaritJulien
II. Studiesonthe(pro)nominalsystem
Pronominalnounphrases,numberspecifications,andnullnouns 143
DorianRoehrs
Towardasyntactictheoryofnumberneutralisation:
TheDutchpronounsje‘you’andze‘them’ 181
GertjanPostma
LongrelativizationinZurichGermanasresumptiveprolepsis 201
MartinSalzmann
III. Historicalstudies
AuxiliaryselectionandcounterfactualityinthehistoryofEnglish
andGermanic 237
ThomasMcFaddenandArtemisAlexiadou
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006;10:39 F:LA97CO.tex / p.2(96-105)
 Tableofcontents
Thelossofresidual“head-final”ordersandremnantfrontinginLate
MiddleEnglish:Causesandconsequences 263
MaryTheresaBiberauerandIanGarethRoberts
Syntacticsourcesofword-formationprocesses:Evidencefrom
OldEnglishandOldHighGerman 299
CarolaTrips
Index 329
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006;8:33 F:LA97IN.tex / p.1(46-118)
From Afrikaans to Zurich German
Comparative studies in Germanic syntax
JuttaM.Hartmann&LászlóMolnárfi
TilburgUniversity
The present volume contains a selection of papers presented at the 20th Com-
parative Germanic Syntax Workshop in Tilburg, June 2005. While – following a
traditionofearlierCGSW-proceedings–thecontributionscoverawiderangeof
Germaniclanguagesaswellasawiderangeofcurrenttopicsinmodernsyntactic
theory,theselectionalsoshowsastrongcomparativecommitment.Suchcommit-
mentmightseemevident.Indeed,therelevanceofthecomparativemethodology
for modern syntax,and more specifically for a theory of UG, can hardly be dis-
puted. To some extent, syntactic theorizing is meaningless without observing,
describing, comparing (and, in the ideal case, explaining) varieties or variations
of a specific language phenomenon occurring cross-linguistically or in different
historical stagesof agivenlanguage.The aimis tofindandtocontrolthe cross-
linguisticallyrelevantcontraststhatdonotgobacktoexternalfactors,butcanbe
explainedasreflexesofthesamedifferenceinthegrammarofthegivenlanguages,
contributingtoourbetterunderstandingofthearchitectureofUG.
Yet,the editorsofthepresentvolumefeel(and,aswebelieve,thissentiment
issharedbymany)thatthecomparativeaspectofCGSWhassomewhatweakened
in recent years and needs to be addressed in a proper way. Only if comparative
studies offer more than just non-systematic side-glances to other languages can
important generalizations be captured and real explanatory power achieved (cf.
especiallyHaider1993orAbraham1995inthisregard).Forthatreasonwewanted
to take the notion “comparative” and “Germanic” in the title of the Workshop
seriously,andaskedforcontributionsthataddressatleasttwoGermaniclanguages
(ordifferentdiachronicstagesofthesameGermaniclanguage)indepth,ordiscuss
aspecificgrammaticalphenomenonofagivenlanguageintheoverallGermanic
perspective.
Heedingthistrulycomparativeperspective,theessaysinthisvolumecelebrate
variety both with respect to the languagesinvestigatedand the topics addressed.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006;8:33 F:LA97IN.tex / p.2(118-177)
 JuttaM.Hartmann&LászlóMolnárfi
The editors particularly welcome that besides the “usual suspects” (i.e. English
and German) and recurring guests (i.e. the Scandinavia) of the CGSW-series,
we could include here studies on lesser-investigated languages such as modern
AfrikaansandZurich German.Thevolumehasalsobenefitedfromastronghis-
torical component, including studies on linguistic aspects of various diachronic
stages of English and German. Here, the emphasis often lies on intralinguistic,
ratherthancross-linguisticvariety,themethodologyofcomparisonfacingpartic-
ular challenges in terms of adequate collection and evaluation of historical data
(seeparticularlyMcFadden&Alexiadou’scontributioninthisrespect).
While covering a wide range of current issues in linguistics, the presentcol-
lectionofessayscanbesubsumedunderthreemajorthematicheadings.Thefirst
partofthevolumecontainscomparativestudiesonpredicationinGermanic,ad-
dressingissuessuchascasedependencyinthedomainofpredication(Sigurðsson),
constraintsofmovementpreservingordistortingthematicrelations(Koeneman)
or a “quirky” case of complex predicate formation in Afrikaans (de Vos). The
secondpart ofthe volumecontainspaperson the(pro)nominaldomainin Ger-
manic,includingstudiesonthelicensingconditionsofpronominalnounphrases
(Roehrs), number neutralization in the Dutch pronominal system (Postma) and
resumptive pronouns in Zurich German (Salzmann). The last part of the vol-
umelooksatGermanicsyntaxfromadiachronicperspective,takinguponissues
such as auxiliary selection in the history of English and, more generally,in Ger-
manic (McFadden & Alexiadou), remnantfronting in Middle English (Biberauer
&Roberts)andsyntacticsourcesofword-formationprocessesinOldEnglishand
OldHighGerman(Trips).Thus,thevolumepresentsawiderangeofstudiesthat
enrich both theoretical understanding and empirical foundation of comparative
researchontheGermaniclanguages.
“TheNom/AccalternationinGermanic”byHalldórÁrmannSigurðssonde-
scribes the distribution of accusative case and discusses the nature of the nomi-
native/accusative distinction in the standardGermaniclanguages.In addition, it
illustratesanddiscussesthewell-knownfactthatinherentaccusativesandcertain
othertypesofaccusativesdonotbehaveinaccordance withBruzio’sGeneraliza-
tion.InspiteoftheseNon-Burzionianaccusatives,thereisageneraldependency
relation between the so-called ‘structural’ cases, Nom and Acc, here referred to
astherelationalcases,such thatrelationalAcc islicensedonlyinthepresenceof
Nom(ashasbeenarguedbymany).ThisrelationisherereferredtoastheSibling
Correlation,SC.Contrarytocommonbelief,however,SCisnotastructuralcor-
relation,butasimplemorphologicalone,suchthatNomisthefirst,independent
case, CASE1 (‘an only child’ or an ‘older sibling’, as it were), whereas Acc is the
second,dependentcase, CASE 2,servingthe solepurposeofbeingdistinctfrom
Nom – the Nom-Acc distinction, in turn, being a morphological interpretation
ortranslationofsyntactic structure.Ithasbeenanunresolved(andlargelyane-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006;8:33 F:LA97IN.tex / p.3(177-233)
FromAfrikaanstoZurichGerman 
glected)problemthattheGermaniclanguagessplitwithrespecttocase-marking
of predicative DPs: nominative versus accusative (It is I/me, etc.). However, the
morphological approach to the relational cases argued for in this paper offers a
solution to this riddle: The predicative Acc languageshaveextendedthe domain
of the Sibling Correlation, such that itappliesnotonlytoargumentsbutalsoto
adjacentDPsingeneral.Thatis,theEnglishtypeofpredicativeAccisnot‘default’,
norisitcausedby‘grammaticalviruses’,butawell-behavedsubtypeofrelational
Acc. Thecentralconclusionofthepaperisthatoneneedstoabandonthestruc-
turalapproachtotherelationalcasesinfavorofamoretraditionalmorphological
understanding.However,thisisnotaconservativebutaradicalmove.Itrequires
thatwe understandmorphology(andPFin general)notas adirectreflection of
syntaxbut as a translationof syntaxinto an understandablebutforeign code or
‘language’, the language of morphology. Nom and Acc are not syntactic features
butmorphologicaltranslationsofsyntacticcorrelations.Itisthusnowonderthat
theyareuninterpretabletothesemanticinterface.
OlafKoeneman’s“Shapeconservation,Holmberg’sgeneralizationandpredi-
cation”buildsonallthepreviousapproachestoShape Conservationandtriesto
solve some problemsthat arise with them(in particular, related to A-movement
inpassiveconstructions).ItisarguedthatHolmberg’sGeneralizationisasyntac-
ticandnotaphonologicalphenomenon.Thisviewallowstheauthortogeneralize
overalargersetoffactsinthefollowingway:Withinthethematicdomain,itisim-
possibletoinverttherelationshipsofthematiccategories,i.e.categoriesassigning
orreceivingaθ-role.Thereasonisthatthegrammarwantstheinterfaceinterpre-
tations atLF andPF to be uniform.It is shown that notorious counterexamples
tothematicisomorphism,suchaspassivizationandshortverbmovement,canbe
dealtwithinaunifiedwaybymakingreferencetopredicationtheory.
MarkdeVos’“Quirkyverb-secondinAfrikaans:complexpredicatesandhead
movement“ discusses a special case of complex predicate formation in modern
Afrikaans.Thecentralaimofthepaperistogiveanovelaccountfor‘QuirkyVerb
Second’,apeculiarconstructioninAfrikaanswhichoptionallypied-pipesacoordi-
natedverbalclustertoverb-secondposition.Afrikaansisaverb-secondlanguage
that also allows the formation of a coordinated verbcluster: [POSTURE VERB]
[AND][LEXICALVERB].Theconstructionisputativelypseudo-coordinativein
characterandtypicallyoccurswithaspectualverbsofposture.Eithertheposture
verb may undergo verb-second individually or, alternatively, the entire coordi-
nated verbal complex may undergo verb second. This construction is puzzling
on a number of grounds. If verb second includes head movement from at V to
at least T (Den Besten 1989), then the optional pied-piping of a phrase-like el-
ementis puzzling.However,if verb-secondinvolvesphrasal remnantmovement
(Müller2004),thentheoptionalabilityofthepostureverbtobeextractedfroma
coordinate structure (in violation of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross